How animal protection groups are delaying the end of vivisection Ray Greek MD INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 1 THREE RS AND ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................................... 2 CAAT ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 FRAME ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 HSUS....................................................................................................................................................... 10 FALSE HOPE.............................................................................................................................................. 18 AFMA.......................................................................................................................................................... 20 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 22 This essay is designed to be read after the essay What is needed in order to end vivisection? Both essays have been written for the animal protection community and should be read with that in mind. AFMA is not an animal protection organization. Introduction Apologists for the vivisection industry are myriad but can generally be divided into two groups. First, there are those who currently use or have used animals in the past in research and their representatives. They have not only their incomes but also their egos and reputations directly linked to vivisection. Second are the people involved in the Three Rs industry who, like the vivisectors, have their incomes linked to the continuation of vivisection and in some cases their egos as well since they were in the past vivisectors themselves. Or, they have an emotional/ego-driven interest in the validity of the animal model since they have promoted the Three Rs and do not wish to concede the obvious; that the Three Rs, when applied to using animals as predictive models, are scientifically untenable [1, 2]. Included in this latter group are those who profess to be advocates for animals but who say: “Gosh darn we just have to experiment on animals. We just have to.” The apologists, along with their attending chorus in the press hail every discovery in an animal as a future human cure. The truth is, unfortunately different. What both groups have in common is the difficult problem of saying animals are capable of predicting human response while simultaneously saying that is not why they are used, since the evidence animals cannot be used to predict human response is overwhelming [1-7]. (See Greek and Shanks’ books for more details about animals not being predictive for humans.) In arguing for the importance of the animal model the apologists use a shotgun strategy. They shoot out multiple arguments hoping that one will hit its target. None of the arguments are deep; they all present a very superficial case for whatever point the apologist is trying to make and they do not stand up to scrutiny. This tactic has rhetorical advantages however. A critic must try to block or dodge every argument. If the critic overlooks a single one, the apologist can claim that it is the killer argument. Also, since there are many arguments, a critic with limited space or time cannot build an impenetrable defense against any of the arguments. Niall Shanks and Ray Greek have refuted the apologists’ main arguments and refer the reader to Animal Models in Light of Evolution for that refutation. This essay is not about proving animal models fail the test of prediction but rather about why so-called animal protection groups, by denying that animal models fail the prediction test, are in fact delaying the end of vivisection. Three Rs and Alternatives The reason the animal model community supports using animals in research is self- evident. In order to understand some of the motivation of those in the Three Rs industry we need to define and discuss the Three Rs and alternatives. The Three Rs are literally three words each of which begins with the letter R. Proponents of the Three Rs want to see the number of animals used in research reduced, the pain and suffering of animals reduced by using protocols that have been refined to decrease pain and suffering, and ultimately the replacement of animals in science. The Three Rs are all about alternatives so we need to analyze that word as well. The word alternative comes from the Latin alternare – meaning to interchange. According to The New Oxford American Dictionary it means: “One of two or more available possibilities.” It implies viability, which of course raises the question whether animal models are viable in the first place. A scientifically invalid practice cannot, properly speaking, be replaced with an alternative. Put another way, there are no alternatives to animal experiments that purports to predict human response. One way to explain this is to say that tofu is not an alternative to eating rocks for nutrition. It is an alternative to eating cows however. Are animal models rocks or cows? Below are the definitions of alternative from two dictionaries (my comments are in bold): Encarta noun (plural al·ter·na·tives) Definition: 1. other possibility: something different from, and able to serve as a substitute for, something else. You could take the bus as an alternative to driving. Original is viable, in this case driving is viable. 2. possibility of choosing: the possibility of choosing between two different things or courses of action. We gave you the alternative; you decided to stay. Original is viable, in this case staying is the original option and is viable. 3. option: either one of two, or one of several, things or courses of action to choose between. I can't decide which of the two alternatives is worse. Both are viable, just not great. American Heritage NOUN: 1a. The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities. b. A situation presenting such a choice. c. Either of these possibilities. See synonyms at choice. 2. Usage Problem One of a number of things from which one must be chosen. ADJECTIVE: 1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things. 2a. Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems: an alternative lifestyle. Original is viable, in this case traditional lifestyle (husband/wife or whatever) is viable. b. Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream: an alternative newspaper; alternative greeting cards. 3. Usage Problem Substitute or different; other. As the above clearly illustrate, viability of the original is implied when one suggests an alternative. This has implications for animal protection organizations (APOs). Some APOs insist that when they use the word alternative they mean a replacement or substitute for using animals and do not mean to imply the animal models are viable. That is like Humpty Dumpty saying in Through the Looking Glass: “When I use a word . it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.” If someone states that when he says, “Jack murdered Jill” he really means is, “In Boston, they bake beans” that is all well and good but such an attitude hardly facilitates communication in normal society. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME), the Johns Hopkins-based Coalition to Abolish Animal Testing (CAAT), and the UK-based Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), all support the Three Rs as do many other APOs. For that matter, even people who experiment on animals support the Three Rs. Discussing alternatives for animal models validates animal experimentation; why else would we need an “alternative”? Below, we will examine some of the apologists for the vivisection industry and the resulting recent developments. CAAT Thomas Hartung is in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, and is Doerenkamp-Zbinden Professor and Chair for Evidence-based Toxicology. He is director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT). In addition, he sits on numerous committees and has received awards from animal protection organizations recognizing his many contributions to animal protection. Thomas Hartung wrote an article in the July 9, 2009 issue of Nature. The following are taken from that article. Some of what he states is correct: There is almost no other scientific field in which the core experimental protocols have remained nearly unchanged for more than 40 years . The first issue is the extent to which animal models reflect human responses. It is clear that the use of animals has limitations: we are not 70 kg rats; we take up substances differently; we metabolize them differently; we live longer (allowing certain diseases to develop and prompting evolutionary adaptations to protect against them); and we are exposed to a multitude of environmental factors. True enough. But his presentation of the problem then falls on back on the traditional, nonscientific, vivisection position of, “Gosh darn, we have to use animals we just have to.” This